Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uncletomwood/Archive

03 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

59.91.136.182 (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Please move this page to the WP space. Thanks. Regards, 59.91.136.182 (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I am assuming good faith and have no comment one way or the other on the merits of this report. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an account of User:Vrghs jacob. Note the similarities. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.147.15 (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What similarities?  Zappa  O  Mati   13:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Strike Eagle I don't understand the intent of this SPI....Uncletomwood reverts an unsourced edit made by the alleged sockpuppet and an SPI is started against him? Rather funny! Patrolling admins, please note that this SPI looks meaningless..please close this immediately. Thanks,   Strike   Σagle    04:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Strike Eagle. The two accounts really do not look similar at all - even Toolserver does not support this SPI. I assume good faith on the part of both the accuser and the accused; I think this was merely a misunderstanding, but I, too, recommend closing this immediately. Wikipedia hasn't been particularly friendly to Uncletomwood, lately, and most of it has been unfounded or due to honest mistakes; I'd hate to lose an editor over frustrations based on misguided accusations. With that said, I have asked Uncletomwood to assert his position more clearly on this page to explicitly deny sockpuppetry, if that is the case. I also urge him to be willing to allow CheckUser if he's comfortable with that (even though it's ridiculously unnecessary) if he/others see fit. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also see this page. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Uncletomwood even welcomed this guy/girl with Twinkle! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Aaannnnnd, per my request at WP:UAA, defenceaccounts was deleted as a promotional username due to the edits and name he/she chose.
 * Vrghs Jacob has following traits:
 * 1. He violates copyrights, puts up notable articles for deletion, reverts constructive edits very aggresively and promptly, adds information on original research with no citations and is involved in plagiarism.
 * 2. He operates several accounts simultaneously and interacts with those accounts with his other accounts as if they belong to other people. Interactions include appraisal, welcoming, awarding and sometimes even ganging up.
 * 3.Uncletomwood says that Vrghs Jacob has an affinity to defence pages while it's a pretence! He loves editing Govt of India article particulary civil services, his favorite being Indian Revenue Service and other accounts services.
 * 4. I'd like somebody who has already dealt with Vrghs Jacob cases to investigate this case.
 * Except Uncletomwood did not violate any copyright, get involved in plagiarism nor original research. Also, can't any user have similar interests? Anyway, looking at other alleged socks you added, some of them do not connect with Uncletomwood.  Zappa  O  Mati   02:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As a user who has previously interacted with two of Vrghs Jacob's socks, I do confirm that there is currently nothing what I saw/would expect to see from Wikimon, and do not find in Uncletomwood based on his interactions here. If he were actually Vrghs do not find it unlikely that he would self revert, as his SPI archive makes it clear that he self reported himself for SPI. His independant interest in the topic is possible but unlikely, I think, based on the limited experience I have with socks. Overall, I think, a CU is warranted, if only to clear Uncletomwood's name and ensure his name is not dragged up for socking again. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * the accusing IP is currently editing from the gunfactory in jabalpur.he seems to have a CoI in these accusations and these edits(GOD KNOWS WHY?)Uncletomwood (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please close this It is obvious now that this is a clear bad-faith SPI...we don't just provide user names and say check they are similar..if similar interests can be considered sock-puppetry, then I'm afraid I have thousands of socks!..patrolling admins, please close this SPI and delete it..there are no proofs to back this hell large claim.....BTW are IPs allowed to start SPIs?  TheStrike   Σagle   10:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

My reply
I dont why I am being brought up?Because i edited some page which my alleged sock puppet too edits?funny wikipedia works that way!Uncletomwood (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I really dont know how to respond to this but here is my take on the issue.I am not a sockmaster nor have i created socks for the following reasons:


 * I just reverted an edit on the defence accounts page assuming AGF as it was not sourced.
 * absolutely no similarities with other sock
 * Did a bit of research on jacob varghese(as pointed onto me by an IP in my talk) or vrghsjacob as he is known in the socking world has an affinity towards defense pages ,but that does not mean i am a sock of his or i created socks
 * no evidence at all
 * in my humble request is to be relieved of this SPI and let me continue my contributions to Wikipedia without any more hassles.Uncletomwood (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * my reply to the accusers points:


 * I agree to that,I am an apprentice editor, I am bound to do that!
 * No i dont thats complete but-load of bull crap,dont throw around accusations like that
 * my favourite Indian Revenue Service!bullshit first of all i started getting interested with that page because of this current event http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-30/india/38929005_1_income-tax-department-tax-net-tax-payers.So i did a bit of research and added some credible info,unlike other pages which i am trying to clean up right now!
 * not necessary as there is lack of evidence and a checkuser is also not warranted as user:TheWikimon had checkuser done on him and he was a confirmed sock of vrghsjacob,i was active that time and if i was a sock of vrghs jacob i would have been caught too in the mess!
 * accuser take a hike and stop with the baseless accusations.And if i have to comment,a bureaucrat with a lower mill as yourself has edited wikipedia before and would have been blocked dont try your gimmicks by editing through IP's.Uncletomwood (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

i wouldnt mind a CU check me but WP:ECA must be read!!Uncletomwood (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Supercede!(quoting what Leonard Hofstadter said when he lawyers up in the The Big Bang Theory

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The original report didn't provide any reasoning why the accounts were connected, nor has any subsequent comment. Closing with prejudice. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)